Heard in the Hall

"With respect to the City Charter change regarding the Inspector General (“IG”), our reasonable follow-up questions include the following: Would it be appropriate for the IG to have a four-year term beginning a year after mayoral elections? Should the IG be appointed from a list of qualified candidates proposed by the Board of Ethics so we can be assured of the appointee’s independence? To provide additional assurance of independence, should Council confirm the mayor’s IG appointee and have authority to hold hearings, and ultimately vote on, an effort by the mayor to dismiss the IG for cause, both of which are done in Chicago, one of the cities the Administration cited repeatedly in its testimony on the proposed legislation? Finally, should we more clearly define the role of the IG vis-à-vis the Controller, the Board of Ethics, and the Chief Integrity Officer?
With respect to the Charter change regarding the ability to appoint deputies in departments, the Law and Government Committee, in fact, approved a measure granting the Administration wide appointment authority. After receiving testimony from the Fraternal Order of Police, the Firefighters’ union, and AFSCME District Council 47, the Committee added a reasonable amendment to the bill so that Council could address the potential for a future administration’s abuse of this expanded appointment authority by establishing reasonable and flexible limits through ordinance. We held the amended bill in Committee at the request of the Administration, which intends to propose an alternative system of checks-and-balances to address Council’s concern.
Finally, with respect to the proposal to hire non-Philadelphians, Councilman Goode and others raised legitimate questions that went unanswered during the hearing, including: What problem are we solving through this legislation? At a time when we are asking private industry to hire Philadelphians – for example, on the Convention Center expansion project – does Council want to send the message that qualified individuals cannot be found here? Could we address any problem by crafting a more narrowly tailored residency requirement or adding preferences for residents in Civil Service testing? Contrary to the position set forth in the editorial, exploring this possible alternative for established Philadelphians is not “insulting City residents.” It would be insulting to City residents if we did not ask these questions or explore other possible solutions.
It is appropriate for City Council to receive and consider the answers to legitimate questions before passing legislation. City Council is being contemplative, not stubborn. We are trying to get it right. Asking the Administration for additional information necessary to make an informed decision and proposing solutions to perceived problems is our job as legislators. When elected, we promised our constituents a pro-active, data-centric approach to governance. We are delivering on this promise.
Maria Quiñones Sanchéz
Curtis Jones, Jr.
Bill Green
"